Introduction

Does the use of content personalization increase content effectiveness, and if so, to what degree? This study’s goal was to find out.

Content personalization is not a new approach. Consider the joy the average person experiences over receiving a hand-written letter or note via snail mail. Compare that to the enthusiasm for correspondence addressed to the “box holder” or “To Whom it May Concern”. We all like to receive letters, mail – content – that was prepared specifically for us. The knowledge that someone took the time to create something intended just for our consumption, based on a relationship or what is known about us, is compelling.

The assumption is that content in the digital realm likewise benefits from personalization or customization. A marketer’s intuition leads to the conclusion that no matter how great the content quality, it is more likely to see consumption and have a greater impact when it too is personalized. There really isn’t an argument against content personalization, but there are barriers, real and imagined. How possible is it to personalize content effectively? How much content needs personalization to have an impact? To what extent should content be personalized? And the most important question is simply, how much more effective is personalized content?

In pursuit of answers to these questions, Demand Metric and Seismic partnered on research to get a set of benchmark data to guide content personalization efforts. This report presents the findings of this research, giving modern marketing leaders data and guidelines to eliminate the guesswork about making content more effective through personalization.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Executive Summary

Content Marketing Importance & Objectives

Content Personalization Overview

Current State of Personalization

Personalization Methods

Metrics, Future Usage & Effectiveness

Analyst Bottom Line

Acknowledgements

Appendix - Survey Background

Research Methodology

This 2016 Content Personalization Benchmark Study survey was administered online during the period of February 4 through February 26, 2016. During this period, 190 responses were collected, 186 of which were qualified and complete enough for inclusion in the analysis. Only valid or correlated findings are shared in this report.